« meet 'neasy | Main | everything part iii »

August 06, 2004

subjective truth

"Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?" interviewer Walter Isaacson asks Gates.

"His face suddenly becomes expressionless," writes Isaacson, "his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at Microsoft that a meeting there can resemble a round table of ecstatic rabbis."

"I don't have any evidence on that," answers Gates. "I don't have any evidence of that." -- Time Magazine, Jan. 13, 1996

~ ~ ~
The thesis I want to put forward is this: the greatest truth reaches us through apparently subjective channels. First, a couple of definitions to set this up:

sub•jec•tive adj. - a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision. b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

ob•jec•tive adj. - a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

I'm no mystic, far from it. But instinctively we all accept that the stronger truths are subjective. We say things like, "a picture is worth a thousand words" because pictures have the power to translate us into a subjective experience much more eloquently and efficiently than human language can. We watch a political candidate talk about her voting record, career, military service and the unemployment rates in her home district, and we know that she's trying to tell us that she's reliable, experienced, and effective. All these objective factoids are meant to help us voters reach a rather subjective conclusion about the candidate.

Of course, objective communication is absolutely vital. It is a peculiar fact of the human condition that in our corporeal existence we are insulated from each other. We can feel any number of things about a loved one, but unless we find a way to express it in objectively observable ways, our loved one will not get the message. That box of chocolates or a dozen roses are provable factoids by which we hope our beloved will reach the rather subjective conclusion that we are smitten. An internal (read subjective) process in one person leaps the barrier of our separateness and sparks a corresponding internal process in another person. Objective communication is the sty we must use to get over the fence.

God, of course, is not inhibited by any such fences. He is a spirit, and a perfect communicator. His objective truths serve the cause of His greater truth, which seems subjective merely because it is personal, shared between Himself and each of us separately. What God communicates to us personally is often not reproducible in objective terms. When we try to tell our friends about an experience with God, we get that sinking, disappointed feeling that it's just not getting across. In fact, it sounds downright silly. This is not simply a matter of non-believers not understanding what it's like to encounter God. This awkwardness happens when we try to explain our experiences to other believers; people we feel should be of like mind. We feel they ought to understand; they may have had similar experiences themselves. But somehow the message was stamped "eyes only", and other sympathetic friends cannot read it. At best we can hope our friends have experienced the same frustration, and will relate to our dilemma.

To flip the situation around, it is tempting to assume another person's personal experience is subjective. That which cannot be measured or understood by outside parties must be merely subjective, that is to say it must be entirely internal. For example, I attend a Broadway musical with a friend, and leave rather put off by the whole experience. But my friend was profoundly moved, and is feeling emotional about it. I conclude that her experience was merely subjective, that it's all in her head. But is it? Have I truly investigated what happened to her during the course of the play, or have I just jumped to a conclusion? As a logician, if I conclude my friend is just being emotional because of some wholly internal experience, I'm assuming a lot. For one thing, I'm assuming there is no God who might be holding personal conversations with my friend.

On the other hand, when I see a woman weeping as she sends her only son off to war, I don't assume she's just working herself up. My intellect is satisfied; the circumstances offer a plausible explanation for her emotion. But a critical look at my understanding of what the mother is experiencing shows that while I conclude her grief may be reasonable, I still don't necessarily understand her grief in the subjective sense.

Of course, subjective channels can also be used to convey the biggest lies. The phrase "Lies, damned lies and statistics" must encompass both objective and subjective information. Just as objective statistics can be used to deceive, so can subjective experiences. Many Christians fall into the trap of assuming truth arrives from either one or the other; this is dangerous stuff. The objective truths we know act as reference points. Since we exist as discrete, isolated pockets of apparent subjectivity, we need objective truth to guide us to each other, and ultimately home. Objective truth is not the destination, nor even the road. It just provides reference points to get us there. The destination and the road are both personal. That is not to say they can be different for each person. It just means it's difficult for us to effectively compare notes. The goal is to arrive at the same location as Someone Else, while never ceasing to be ourselves. This is a dangerous pilgrimage, but the danger serves a purpose. The danger inherent in this natural world is there to insure that whatever we discover about God is not merely objective, but rather, subjective; that is to say, whatever we learn about God must be personal.

Posted by joel at August 6, 2004 11:05 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.chezjoel.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/37

Comments

Post a comment